News Release

October 23, 2001

Election reform threatens essence of democracy, study says
States and citizens should take more responsibility for election process

WASHINGTON—Following the disputed presidential election of 2000, Congress is now expected to address election reform this fall. But is congressional involvement necessary? According to a new analysis from the Cato Institute, centralizing control of elections will damage the constitutional republic by removing any sense of individual voter responsibility and hindering the process of discovery that is a vital aspect of federalism.

In "Election Reform, Federalism, and the Obligations of Voters," Cato scholar John Samples examines the 2000 election and the proposals put forward by various private commissions since then. He argues that although the Constitution allows Congress to regulate state elections, the intent of the Founders was to give Congress that power only if extraordinary circumstances warranted it. Those circumstances were not present in the 2000 election, he says. "In retrospect, the presidential election was simply a close contest dependent on a recount in one state."

Even if Congress decides to override the states in matters of election administration, it should be careful how it does it, Samples warns. "Election officials in the states are now eager for new federal funding for election reform. But as in other areas, a great danger exists that federal money will come with federal controls," he says. "On the whole, the states might be better off refusing money from Washington."

The funding debate also ignores the responsibilities of citizens and governments, Samples argues. States have a responsibility to protect the integrity of the ballot, but the "Motor Voter" law passed in 1994 has made it harder to verify the identity of voters seeking to register and to keep the registration rolls clean.

Individual voters must also take more responsibility, Samples says. "Fair and informed elections require citizens to meet minimal obligations, including registering and gaining knowledge about the choices offered and how to vote. Instead, we have heard much about the victimization of voters." But by implying that all obligations are collective, such rhetoric suggests that voters are not capable of assuming the minimal obligations, he argues. "If citizens come to believe that, the Republic will be undermined."

"Election Reform, Federalism, and the Obligations of Voters"